Read Time: 07 minutes

The Supreme Court yesterday remarked that it may not be wise or prudent to convict a person only because there is rampant increase in heinous crimes and victims are oftenly reluctant to speak truth due to fear or other extraneous reasons.

A bench comprising of CJI NV Ramana and Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli further said,

“The burden to prove the guilt beyond doubt does not shift on the suspect save   where   the   law   casts   duty   on   the   accused   to   prove   his/her innocence. It is the bounden duty of the prosecution in cases where material   witnesses   are   likely   to   be   slippery, either   to   get   their statements   recorded   at   the   earliest   under   Section   164   Cr.P.C.   or collect such   other cogent evidence   that   its   case   does   not entirely depend upon oral testimonies.”

With this view, the bench went on to set aside the orders passed by the Trial Court and the Punjab and Haryana High Court whereby it had convicted one Bijender under Sections 392 and 397 IPC.

The Court found that the   only   eye-witnesses to the alleged crime, had not supported the case of the Prosecution.

“The Complainant (PW­4) in his testimony before the Court unequivocally denied that the Appellant   or his co­accused   were   involved   in   the execution of the offence. Further, in the deposition of ASI Rajinder Kumar (PW­14), who was the investigating officer of the case, there is no   mention   of   T.I.P.   even   attempted   to   be   led, in   so   far   as   the Appellant is concerned. Ergo, the very identity of the Appellant as one of the perpetrators stands obscured, particularly, considering that all the   accused   in   the   case   were   arrested   on   the   basis   of   a   secret information, the origin of which is naturally unknown”, noted the Court.

While relying on the evidence, the Bench remarked that at times the Court can convict an accused exclusively on the basis of his disclosure statement and the resultant recovery of inculpatory material, however, in order to   sustain   the   guilt   of   such   accused, the   recovery   should   be unimpeachable and not be shrouded with elements of doubt.

Incontrovertibly, said the Court, where the prosecution fails to inspire confidence in the manner and/or contents of the recovery with regard to its nexus to the alleged offence, the Court ought to stretch the benefit of doubt to the accused. Its nearly three centuries old cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that “it is better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer”.

“The doctrine of extending benefit of doubt to an accused, notwithstanding the proof of a strong suspicion, holds its fort on the premise that “the acquittal of a guilty person constitutes a miscarriage of justice just as much as the coviction of the innocent”.” further remarked the Court.

It was thus held that, the Prosecution in the present case had miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the Appellant and Courts below have been unwittingly swayed by irrelevant considerations, such   as   the   rise   in   the   incidents   of dacoity.

Thus, while allowing the appeal and setting aside the conviction, the top court said,

“In its desire to hold a heavy hand over such derelictions, the Trial Court and the High Court have hastened to shift the burden on the Appellant to elucidate how he bechanced to be in possession of the incriminating   articles,  without   primarily  scrutinizing   the   credibility and   admissibility   of   the   recovery   as   well   as   its   linkage   to   the misconduct…”

Cause Title: Bijender @ Mandar v State of Haryana